Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

"Many goods aren't readily accessible in North Korea, but according to a new study,
one is: Methamphetamine.

Though research about drug use in the closed-off country is scarce (as are accurate
reports originating from North Korea), a new study published in the American
journal "North Korean Review" estimates that 40 to 50 percent of meth users in the
northern part of North Korea are addicted to the drug, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The study, titled "A New Face of North Korean Drug Use," details how crystal meth,
known as "ice," has replaced opium as the most commonly abused narcotic.

"Almost every adult in that area (of North Korea) has experienced using ice and not
just once," the study's co-author, Kim Seok-hyang, told the Journal."

"Many goods aren't readily accessible in North Korea, but according to a new study,
one is: Methamphetamine.

Though research about drug use in the closed-off country is scarce (as are accurate
reports originating from North Korea), a new study published in the American
journal "North Korean Review" estimates that 40 to 50 percent of meth users in the
northern part of North Korea are addicted to the drug, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The study, titled "A New Face of North Korean Drug Use," details how crystal meth,
known as "ice," has replaced opium as the most commonly abused narcotic.

"Almost every adult in that area (of North Korea) has experienced using ice and not
just once," the study's co-author, Kim Seok-hyang, told the Journal."

In 2005, Defense Department employee Lawrence Franklin pleaded guilty to passing classified data on Iran to two pro-Israel lobbyists. He received a prison sentence of 12 years, which a judge later cut to 10 months in a halfway house.

In 2005, Defense Department employee Lawrence Franklin pleaded guilty to passing classified data on Iran to two pro-Israel lobbyists. He received a prison sentence of 12 years, which a judge later cut to 10 months in a halfway house.

Even considering a certain room for maneuver in jurisdiction, I can hardly imagine, that the factual difference of the crime in both cases can explain the differences in the sentence. Lady justice may not be as blind as she ought to be.
We got the message... don't f*ck with the USA.

Other observers agreed the sentence would be a powerful deterrent and in future help to protect national security.
"The message will be sent in a loud and clear fashion to all those in uniform that they do not get to make decisions on what is legitimate and what is not, with regard to U.S. policy," said Steven Bucci, a foreign policy specialist at the Heritage Foundation.

unless of course the secrets are pass off to Israel. You then get a slap on the wrist and job as Israel lobbyist.

I know what he did may have put soldiers' lives in danger, and could perhaps be considered treasonous, but it seems quite extreme to me that the penalty he's getting is far more severe than what is given to a man that "just" engages in one cold-blooded premeditated murder.

So its worse to leak classified national documents than it is to kill a person with your own bare hands. That seems to be the message being sent here.

While we wish for transparencies on information especially under distrust of authorities, at the same time, the gravity of consequences of leaks are not marginal, and classified information should, by all account, be classified. I don't find the sentence to be extreme, but at the same time sympathize with the guilty.

My question is, can you say the same thing if it was not America, but North Korea, or China or Country X (insert whatever country you hate here) do similar thing? Accuse a citizen or a person who expose a national secret (e.g. human right related, or something on oppressed citizens, like Tibet) that may cause backslash and lead to revenge on polices or military personnel stationed there.

Eh, I'd be surprised if some of those countries only let him go with 35 years of prison, instead of lining up in front of a firing squad. Especially North Korea.
Ol' Kimmy rocketed people into bits for far less.

My question is, can you say the same thing if it was not America, but North Korea, or China or Country X (insert whatever country you hate here) do similar thing? Accuse a citizen or a person who expose a national secret (e.g. human right related, or something on oppressed citizens, like Tibet) that may cause backslash and lead to revenge on polices or military personnel stationed there.

If America wants to be on equal grounds as the likes of China and North Korea, that is their choice. And I will keep that in mind and in the future, treat America with the same (non-existent) amount of trust and admiration as I have towards North Korea.

The fact is I would get less of a prison sentence to murder someone on national TV. Telling the truth is now worse than murder.